Sidor som bilder

Rom. v. 8; viii. 32.



the infinite love of God appearing in the sending of his only

begotten Son into the world to die for sinners. This love of John iii. 16. God is frequently extolled and admired by the apostles. God

so loved the world, saith St John, that he gave his only-begotten
Son. God commendeth his love towards us, saith St Paul, in

that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us: in that he 1 John iv. 9, spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. In

this, saith St John again, was manifested the love of God to-
wards us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the
world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not
that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son
to be the propitiation for our sins. If we look upon all this
as nothing else, but that God should cause a man to be
born after another manner than other men, and when he

so born after a peculiar manner, yet a mortal man,
should deliver him to die for the sins of the world; I see
no such great expression of his love in this way of redemp-
tion, more than would have appeared if he had redeemed us
any other way. It is true indeed that the reparation of
lapsed man is no act of absolute necessity in respect of God,
but that he hath as freely designed our redemption as our 144
creation ; considering the misery from which we are redeemed,
and the happiness to which we are invited, we cannot but
acknowledge the singular love of God even in the act of
redemption itself; but yet the apostles have raised that con-
sideration higher, and placed the choicest mark of the love of
God, in the choosing such means, and performing in that
manner our reparation, by sending his only-begotten into the
world; by not sparing his own Son, by giving and delivering
him up to be scourged and crucified for us: and the estima-
tion of this act of God's love must necessarily increase pro-
portionably to the dignity of the Son so sent into the world;
because the more worthy the person of Christ before he
suffered, the greater his condescension unto such a suffering
condition; and the nearer his relation to the Father, the
greater his love to us for whose sakes he sent him so to
suffer. Wherefore to derogate any way from the person and
nature of our Saviour before he suffered, is so far to under-
value the love of God, and, consequently, to come short of
that acknowledgment and thanksgiving which is due unto
him for it. If then the sending of Christ into the world

were the highest act of the love of God which could be expressed; if we be obliged unto a return of thankfulness some way correspondent to such infinite love; if such a return can never be made without a true sense of that infinity, and a sense of that infinity of love cannot consist without an apprehension of an infinite dignity of nature in the person sent: then it is absolutely necessary to believe that Christ is so the only-begotten Son of the Father, as to be of the same substance with him, of glory equal, of majesty co-eternal.

By this discourse in way of explication, every Christian may understand what it is he says, and express his mind how he would be understood, when he maketh this brief confession, I believe in Christ the only Son of God. For by these words he must be thought to intend no less than this: I do profess to be fully assured of this assertion, as of a most certain, infallible, and necessary truth, that Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Messias, is the true, proper, and natural Son of God, begotten of the substance of the Father; which being incapable of division or multiplication, is so really and totally communicated to him, that he is of the same essence with him, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God. And as I assert him so to be the Son, so do I also exclude all other persons from that kind of sonship, acknowledging none but him to be begotten of God by that proper and natural generation: and thereby excluding all which are not begotten, as it is a generation; all which are said to be begotten, and are called sons, but are so only by adoption, as it is natural. And thus I believe in God the Father, and in JESUS CHRIST HIS ONLY Son.

OUR LORD. AFTER our Saviour's relation founded upon his eternal generation, followeth his dominion in all ancient Creeds', as the necessary consequent of his filiation. For as we believe him to be the Son of God, so must we acknowledge him to be our Lord, because the only Son must of necessity be heir and Lord of all in his Father's house; and all others which bear the name of sons, whether they be men or angels, if com

1 For though in the first rules of faith mentioned by Irenæus and Tertullian we find not Dominum nostrum, yet in all the Creeds afterwards we find those words ; probably inserted


because denied by the Valentinians, of whom Ireneus: Διά τούτο τον Σωτηρα λέγουσιν, ουδέ γάρ Κύριον ονομάSELV autóv Oélovor. 1. i. c. 1. (8 3. p. 7.)



pared to him must not be looked upon as sons of God, but as
servants of Christ.

Three things are necessary, and more cannot be, for a 145
plenary explication of this part of the Article; first, the proper
notation of the word Lord in the Scripture phrase, or language
of the Holy Ghost; secondly, The full signification of the same
in the adequate latitude of the sense, as it belongs to Christ ;
thirdly, The application of it to the person making confession
of his faith, and all others whom he involves in the same con-
dition with himself, as saying not my, nor their, but our Lord.

First then we must observe, that not only Christ is the Lord, but that this title doth so properly belong unto him that the Lord alone absolutely taken is frequently used by the

evangelists and apostles determinately for Christ', insomuch Matt. xxviii. that the angels observe that dialect, Come, see the place where

the Lord lay. Now for the true notation of the word”, it will
not be so necessary to inquire into the use or origination of the

1 Mar. xvi. 19, 20. Luke xii, 42; vos the person bought, that is, the ser-
xxiv, 34. John iv. 1; vi. 23; xi. 2; vant; whereas the place requires an
xx. 2, 18, 20, 25; xxi. 7. Acts ix. 1, interpretation wholly contrary; for
6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 27, 31, 42; xi. 16, έωνημένος is not here ήγορασμένος, but
24; xiii. 47, &c. Kúplos.

αγοράσας, or ώνησάμενος, as the scho2 For whosoever shall consider the

liast, Suidas, and Moschopulus have signification of Kúplos in the Scrip observed; that is, not the servant, but tures, I think he will scarce find any the master who bought him. And footsteps of the same in the ancient

though those grammarians bring no Greeks. In our sacred Writ it is

other place to prove this active signi. the frequent name of God, whereas I fication beside this of Aristophanes, imagine it is not to be found soused by by which means it might be still ques. any of the old Greek authors. Julius

tionable whether they had rightly inPollux, whose business is to observe terpreted him without any authority; what words and phrases may be proper. yet Phrynichus will sufficiently secure ly made use of in that language, tells us of this sense: "Έτυχον εωνημένος us the Gods may be called Ocol or οικίαν ή αγρόν. ενταύθα ουδέν εγχωρεί Δαίμονες, but mentions not Κύριος, των από του πρίασθαι" μένει το εωνηas neither proper, nor any name of μένος δόκιμον. 'Έωνημένος then here God with them at all. Nor did they is he which buyeth, that is, the anciently use it in their economics; master; and consequently kúpios not where their constant terms were not

the master, but the servant bought, κύριος, but δεσπότης and δούλος; and whom he supposeth originally to they had then another kind of notion

have power over his own body. In-
of it, as appears by the complaint of deed it was not only distinguished,
the servant in Aristophanes. Plut. 6. but in a manner opposed to des-
Του σώματος γαρ ουκ έα τον κύριον

TÓTOS : as appears by that observa-
Κρατείν ο δαίμων, αλλά τον εωνημένον.

tion of Ammonius, thus delivered by
In which words, if they were inter Eustathius in Odyss. 2. 146. K úplos
preted by the Scripture usage, Kúplos γυναικός και υιών ανήρ και πατήρ, δεσ-
would signify the master, and iwvqué πότης δε αργυρωνήτων. .

Greek, much less into the etymology of the correspondent Latin, as to search into the notion of the Jews, and the language of the Scriptures, according unto which the evangelists and apostles spake and wrote.

And first, it cannot be denied, but that the word which we translate the Lord was used by the interpreters of the Old Testament sometimes for men, with no relation unto any other than human dominion'. And as it was by the translators of the Old, so is it also by the penmen of the New. But it is most certain that Christ is called Lord in another notion than that which signifies any kind of human dominion, because as so,

1 As 178 is generally translated Kúplos, when it signifieth lord or master in respect of a servant or inferior. So Sarah called her husband, Gen. xviii. 12. 1 Pet. iii. 6. so Eliezer his master Abraham, Gen. xxiv.frequently. Thus Rachel saluteth her father Laban, Gen. xxxi. 35. and Jacob his brother Esau, Gen. xxxiii. 8. Potiphar is the KÚPLoS of Joseph whom he bought, Gen. xxxix. 2, &c. and Joseph in power is so saluted by his brethren, Gen. xlii. 10. and acknowledged by his servant, Gen. xliv. 5. The general name in the law of Moses for servant and master is παίς and κύριος, Εxod. xxi. 2, 4. It is indeed so plain that the ancient Jews used this word to signify no more than human power, that we find on the name of man so translated, as 1 Sam. xvii. 32.5x Toby 07x as boeun on OVUTEOĆTW kapdia του κυρίου μου έπ' αυτόν. [The LΧΧ. here have obviously misread pix for : )

. For kúplos is used with relation and in opposition to malolokn, Acts xvi. 16, in the sense which the later, not the ancient, Greeks used it: Ilaidlσκη, τούτο επί της θεραπαινης οι νύν τιθέασιν" οι δε αρχαίοι επί της νεάνιδος, as Phrypichus observes. As it is opposed to olkétns, Luke xvi. 13. (according to that of Etymol. Κύριος των προς τι εστίν, έχει δε προς τον οικέτην.) to golos, Matt. X. 24, and xviii. 25, &c. And in the apostolical rules pertaining to Christian economics, the master and servant are δούλος and κύριος. Ας

also by way of addition κύριος του θερισμού, Μatt. ix. 38. κύριος του αμπελώνος, Μatt. ΧΧ. 8. κύριος της oiklas, Mark xiii. 35. Insomuch as Kúple is sometimes used by way of address or salutation of one man to another, (as it is now generally among the later Greeks, and as Dominus was anciently among the Latins: Quomodo obvios, si nomen non succurrit, Dominos salutamus.' Sen. Epist. 3. 8 1.) not only of servants to masters, as Matt. xiii. 27. or sons to parents, as Matt. xxi. 30. or inferiors to men in authority, as Matt. xxvii. 63. but of strangers; as when the Greeks spake to Philip, and desired him, saying, Κύριε, θέλομεν τον Ιησούν idelv, John xii. 21. and Mary Magdalene speaking unto Christ, but taking him for a gardener, Kúple, el èßáo. tadas aútbv, John xx. 15. And it cannot be denied but this title was sometimes given to our Saviour him. self, in no higher or other sense than this; as when the Samaritan woman saw him alone at the well, and knew no more of him than that he appeared to be one of the Jews, she said, Kúple, ούτε άντλημα έχεις, και το φρέαρ έστι Balú, John iv. 11. And the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda, when he wist not who it was, said unto him, Κύριε, άνθρωπον ουκ έχω, John ν. 7. The blind man, to whom he had restored his sight, with the same salutation maketh confession of his ignorance, and his faith, Τίς έστι, Κύριε; and iTEÚw, Kúple, John ix. 36, 38.


Eph. iv, 5. Col. iii. 22. 1 Cor. ii. 8;


1 Cor. viii. 5. there are many Lords, but he is in that notion Lord, which 1 Cor. viii. 6. admits of no more than one. They are only masters according

to the flesh; he the Lord of glory, the Lord from heaven, King v'xix. 16. of kings, and Lord of all other lords.

Nor is it difficult to find that name amongst the books of 146 the Law, in the most high and full signification; for it is most frequently used as the name of the supreme God, sometimes for El or Elohim, sometimes for Shaddai or the Rock, often for Adonai, and most universally for Jehovah, the undoubted proper name of God, and that to which the Greek translators, long before our Saviour's birth, had most appropriated the

name of Lord, not only by way of explication, but distinction Psal . lxxxiii. and particular expression. As when we read, Thou whose

name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high in all the earth ; Exod. vi. & and when God so expresseth himself, 1 appeared unto Abra

ham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty,
but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them. In both
these places, for the name Jehovah the Greek translation, which
the apostles followed, hath no other name but Lord; and there-
fore undoubtedly by that word which we translate the Lord'

1 I know it is the vulgar opinion, , Ó SEOTÓTIS
that kúplos properly answereth unto kúpios Eaßawo, Isai. i. 24. but also 17
•978, and the reason why it was also 12'978 Kuplov Toll Deoû nuwv, Nehem. X.
used for 17. is no other than because 29. Secondly, the reason of this
the Jews were wont to read Adonai in assertion is most uncertain, For
the place of Jehovah. Of which ob though it be confessed that the Maso.
servation they make great use who reths did read .78 where they found
deny the Divinity of Christ: 'Quia 097, and Josephus before them ex-
enim Adonai pro Jehova in lectione presses the sense of the Jews of his
Hebræorum verborum substitui con age, that the terpaypáujatov was not
suevit, ideo illius etiam interpretatio to be pronounced, and before him
huic accommodatur,' says Crellius de Philo speaks as much; yet it follow.
Deo et Attrib. c. 14. [p. 35. Opera.

eth not from thence, that the Jews
vol. v.] But first it is not probable were so superstitious above three
that the LXX. should think kúplos to hundred years before; which must

, be proved before we can be assured and give it to Jehovah only in the that the LXX. read Adonai for Jeho. place of Adonai; for if they had, it val, and for that reason translated would have followed, that where it Kúplos. Thirdly, as we know no Adonai and Jehovah had met together reason why the Jews should so conin one sentence, they would not have found the names of God; so were it put another word for Adonai, to which now very irrational in some places to κύριος Was proper, and place κύριος for

': ,
Jehovah, to whom of itself (according (Exod. vi, 3.] I appeared unto Abra-
to their observation) it did not be ham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, 5x3
long. Whereas we read not only 6378

07107• translated ôéorota Kúple, Gen. xv. Vulgar translation render it, In Deo

,אדני be the proper interpretation of

,As when God saith :יהוה for אדני read

though the ,שדי ושמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם

« FöregåendeFortsätt »